MagsJ wrote:Are fears ever unjustifiable? .....a pattern of criminal activity is obviously a pattern not to be ignored

Fears are frequently unjustified (not sure that's the same as unjustifiable). See, for example, the fear of balloons.

In this case, they're unjustified because they're based on the belief that there is a pattern of criminal activity which we don't have any evidence of. If there were a pattern of criminal activity, and if the law proposed were effective at curtailing that criminal behavior without causing more harm than it prevents, then such a law is appropriate. But (1) there is no such pattern of criminal behavior, there's only unjustified fear, and (2) in the absence of a harm to be prevented, any law is likely to cause much more harm than it prevents.

An apparently transgender woman in Wyoming has been convicted of molesting a 10-year-old girl in a bathroom. Casper resident Michelle Martinez—whose legal name is still Miguel Alberto Martinez, so she went on trial under that name—was convicted of two charges of sexual abuse of a child and faces up to 70 years in prison.

A former youth pastor, Lilly was arrested Jan. 12, 2016. The Mercer County Grand Jury later indicted him on 28 counts of first-degree sexual abuse as well as third-degree sexual assault and incest. He later pleaded guilty to three charges of first-degree sexual abuse. After being arrested, he told detectives with the Bluefield Police Department that he was a transgender who was in the process of becoming a woman.

The victim, a female juvenile, came forward after learning that Lilly was pursuing a teaching career and student teaching at a school. The principal at Bluefield Intermediate School said later that Lilly was a student observer in 2015, but had little interaction with the students. Detective K.L. Adams of the Bluefield Police Department said after Lilly’s arrest that the abuse began in 2009.

Transgender activists have sounded off in recent weeks claiming that they are being unfairly characterized by those concerned about locker room privacy and safety following the launch of the Just Want Privacy campaign. Proponents of repealing the open bathroom rule have repeatedly said that their concern is not that the transgender community is going to harm women and children, but that it creates opportunity for those who would seek access to places they don’t belong.

Much of this debate has taken place in social media.

Seattle-based transgender rights activist Johanna Wolf has been among the most vitriolic in her responses to privacy activists, claiming that it’s only their “hatred” and “bigotry” that is trying to keep her and others out of the locker rooms and showers.

Recently we have discovered that Johanna used to be a man, Jonathan Adrian Wolf, who is a sex-offender convicted of raping a 20-year old deaf girl in Nebraska in 2006.

Pedro I Rengel wrote:We do know that males who identify themselves as females enter female sports leagues, causing great damage, often physical, often of morale.

It is not unreasonable to think they might apply this abuse in less visible circumstances. Or do you think it is?

I think sports are a harder case, because there biology is much more salient. It touches on debates about gene doping and steroids, which are ongoing and controversial in themselves.

But I don't think the fact that a transwoman can be dangerous in an MMA match says too much about how dangerous they are in other circumstances. In sports, transwomen who play entirely by the rules can be dangerous in the same way that an adult who plays a child's sport entirely by the rules can be dangerous.

If the level of danger someone poses in non-sports contexts is highly dependent on how strong we think that person is, then a transwoman would pose a danger. But that doesn't seem to be the case; much more important is how readily someone will 'break the rules', and that doesn't seem to be any greater for male-to-female transsexuals (greater than women, slightly lower than men).

I agree with your assessment of the philosophical questions, but I think a major one posed by the existence of transsexuals is what gender and sex really are. We see here that Gloominary and Wendy want to use a definition that's basically limited to genetics, and I'm arguing for a definition that divides genetic gender/sex from social gender/sex.

WendyDarling wrote:So unjustified...pfft.

Why are we even talking about transsexuals when we have so much reason to be afraid of clowns!!!...

The New York Times wrote:Grandma the clown, has resigned from the world-renowned Big Apple Circus after it was revealed that he pressured a 16-year-old aerialist into posing for pornographic photos in 2004.

You don't think that the same differences in psychology and phisiology between women and men who identify themselves as women that are relevant in a sports arena, where women are at their peak of attention and training, are relevant in a place where they are as vulnerable as they are in a bathroom?

"I am not fazed by myself. I have dragged myself through too much of myself to be fazed. Others are disturbed by the slightes articulation of themselves. But they are unfazed by the machine."

I'm certainly in no place to tell her otherwise. Why not? Her race biology does not align with black and you have the gall to make a mockery of reality as you do, so sad and a huge testament to the degeneracy of the modern liberal mind.

I've got one for you: how many generations back before you get to your first black ancestor? My genetics did not turn up any African descent. So I would never get to my first black ancestor. Sorry, the ploy failed.

Gloominary wrote:I am acknowledging men can occasionally have some feminine traits that aren't just an act and vice versa.

Ok, so take all such traits a biological man can have, and imagine an outlier who has all of them to an extreme degree, such that the only traits that aren't feminine are 1) chromosomes, and 2) genital shape. In a social situation that doesn't involve chromosomes or genitals, why shouldn't that person be treated as a woman? By hypothesis, everything that matters about gender in that context is feminine. Social expectations and intuitions around that interaction will be more accurate if the mental model we use there is "woman" rather than "man".

WendyDarling wrote:Trans people play a very dangerous game when they are not honest from the get-go.

Let's ignore for the time being that by your own admission you're unable to actually find an example of what you're describing, and just assume that it happens. What is the syllogism you're plugging this into? Sometimes transwomen who go to bars and pick up men get assaulted, therefor...? I don't see what part of your position follows from that claim (which, not for nothing, you have admitted to being unable to substantiate).

You cannot substantiate with scientific certitude that trans women are not 100% biologically male which includes physiologically and psychologically. It's more than chromosomes and genital shape that aren't female. The genitals themselves aren't female nevermind their shape. Trans women also lack the female reproductive organs associated with female genitalia and reproductive function of female genitalia.

They knowingly deceive to feel more like women, that does happen. They do get beat up and sometimes murdered for their deception.

In 2014, Jennifer Laude, a 26-year-old Filipina woman, was brutally murdered after having sex with a U.S. marine. The marine in question, Joseph Scott Pemberton, strangled her until she was unconscious and then proceeded to drown her in a toilet bowl.Understandably, this crime triggered a lot of outrage. But while some were outraged over the horrific nature of the crime, many others were outraged by a different detail in the story. That was because Jennifer Laude had done the unspeakable. She was a trans woman and had not disclosed that information before having sex with Pemberton. So in the minds of many cis people, her death was the price she paid for not disclosing her trans status. Here are some of the comments on CNN's Facebook page when the story broke.

PASCAGOULA, Miss. — A former Navy sailor has been sentenced to 40 years in prison for the 2016 stabbing death of a transgender woman in Mississippi.

Dwanya Hickerson, 21, pleaded guilty Thursday to murder in the killing of Dee Whigham in a St. Martin hotel room on July 23. Hickerson will also have to serve 15 years for a robbery charge. He could have faced the death penalty if he had gone to trial on the original charge of capital murder.

More evidence.

They should be termed crimes of passion since there is a great emotional intensity to having been deceived about the gender of a sexual partner. Those people who assault or kill someone after they've been lied to on such an important issue, should get leniency or get off on the charges under the temporary insanity plea.

I AM OFFICIALLY IN HELL!

I live my philosophy, it's personal to me and people who engage where I live establish an unspoken dynamic, a relationship of sorts, with me and my philosophy.

Cutting folks for sport is a reality for the poor in spirit. I myself only cut the poor in spirit on Tues., Thurs., and every other Sat.

Trans status should always be disclosed to any potential sexual partner otherwise they are having sex by deceptionConsent given under a false assumption is not actually consent and so could therefore be classed as statutory rape

Those examples Wendy quoted above highlight just how dangerous non disclosure for trans people isThe time to say something is before sex takes place not after it when consent can not be withdrawn

Pedro I Rengel wrote:You don't think that the same differences in psychology and phisiology between women and men who identify themselves as women that are relevant in a sports arena, where women are at their peak of attention and training, are relevant in a place where they are as vulnerable as they are in a bathroom?

I don't, because what makes it an issue in sports isn't an issue in bathrooms. As I said above, biology is quite salient in the sports arena, because sports are designed as physical competition that require participants to push their bodies to the limits. To see the difference, consider performance enhancing drugs, which are an issue in sports but not an issue in bathroom use. No one things we should be testing for performance enhancing drugs before people use a particular bathroom or have separate juicer bathrooms, because the ways in which performance enhancing drugs affect sports aren't salient in bathrooms. That's essentially the same thing that's happening with transwomen in women's sports: there's a credible claim that their participation undermines the leveling intention of having sex-specific sports. But that isn't an issue in bathroom usage.

WendyDarling wrote:My genetics did not turn up any African descent. So I would never get to my first black ancestor. Sorry, the ploy failed.

All humans lines, all of us, originate in Africa. Even non-sapiens humans evolved in Africa and migrated out, and modern humans definitely evolved in Africa and migrated out. You may not have looked back far enough, but all your ancestors ultimately descend from black people in Africa.

You're black, Wendy.

WendyDarling wrote:You cannot substantiate with scientific certitude that trans women are not 100% biologically male which includes physiologically and psychologically.

I think this claim is likely to be question-begging. Your definition of psychologically male is based on the psychology of people who have XY chromosomes. So even if someone's brain and behavior strongly correlate with people with XX chromosomes, I'd expect you to say that their brain and behavior are male by definition. By such definition, where every person with XY chromosomes is male, and the sex of all traits of a person are judged by that person's chromosomes, your claim is true by definition, it's just a tautology. But that's just begging the question.

If instead we look at the distribution of behavior and brain structure across people with different sets of chromosomes, I would expect to see two clusters roughly corresponding to social sex, and I would also expect to see significant overlap between the clusters, and people with different sets of chromosomes represented in both clusters. And that's what we see.

WendyDarling wrote:They do get beat up and sometimes murdered for their deception.

Still waiting for you to clarify how you think this supports your position.

surreptitious75 wrote:Trans status should always be disclosed to any potential sexual partner otherwise they are having sex by deceptionConsent given under a false assumption is not actually consent and so could therefore be classed as statutory rape

I think this is a case-by-case issue. In some places, political affiliations or religions or beliefs about vaccines might be seen as super important, and in other places not so much. Probably at very liberal colleges, trans status is seen as less significant than Republican status.

And consent is kind of always given under false assumptions, it matters a lot what those assumptions are. If the assumptions are "the guy in the mask is my boyfriend", then there's an issue of consent. If it's "the guy at the bar is a millionaire", we usually don't recognize a lack of consent. I don't think this question is easy or cut and dry on any issue.

Thanathots wrote:I identify as the top authority of this forum. Carleas, ban all other mods and makes me the mod of all forums.

If you really identified that way, you wouldn't be asking me to do it for you.

If trannies really identified as X, they wouldn't be asking others to call them that. Others would just automatically recognize them as X.

So the same way that I'm not actually the top authority and don't deserve to be called that and enjoy whatever privileges go along with that, trannies aren't really what they say etc.

See, it's not complicated.

Leftists only use this "let's ignore reality" logic until it has consequences for them, like in order to be consistent with his nonsense Carleas would have to give control of the forum over to me. Basically, they are applying it selectively, hypocritically.

So there's no reason to take them seriously.

Like when somebody tells you "words have no meaning" but then you physically submit them and start punching them in the face, they'll start using words like "Please let go", "stop punching me, please", "you're hurting me" etc. as if they have meaning.

I mean, the very sentence "words have no meaning", why say them then?

Very easy to lie until you're forced to face the real, tangible, physical consequences of your deceitful logic.

All humans lines, all of us, originate in Africa. Even non-sapiens humans evolved in Africa and migrated out, and modern humans definitely evolved in Africa and migrated out. You may not have looked back far enough, but all your ancestors ultimately descend from black people in Africa.

Europe was the birthplace of mankind, not Africa, scientists findThe discovery of the creature, named Graecopithecus freybergi, and nicknameded ‘El Graeco' by scientists, proves our ancestors were already starting to evolve in Europe 200,000 years before the earliest African hominid.

Controversial Study Claims Apes and Human Ancestors Split in Southern EuropeResearchers studying human origins have long argued that some of the earliest primates lived in Eurasia. As the story goes, some of them eventually made their way into Africa where, between six and eight million years ago, the group split in two: one lineage headed toward modern-day apes and the other eventually became humans.

But when, where and why they split is still intensely debated. Now, two new controversial studies published in the journal PLOS One are stoking the fire, suggesting that the last common ancestor of great apes and humans actually lived in Southern Europe, not in Africa.

Leftists only use this "let's ignore reality" logic until it has consequences for them, like in order to be consistent with his nonsense Carleas would have to give control of the forum over to me. Basically, they are applying it selectively, hypocritically.

Carleas, doesn't really think consequences matter particularly the consequences for lying matter, so he seems satisfied that trans people are beaten up and murdered and that is nobodies business but their own and the people whom they deceive who jack them up. The people who are fauxsexual victims should not be held liable for their knee jerk, emotional disgust and subsequent violent behavior. Fauxsexuals deserve the consequences for their lies, hoodwinking others when they are emotionally and physically vulnerable. Reality doesn't care if Carleas understands my point or accepts it as valid, assault, battery, and murder will continue to happen when fauxsexuals take pretend too far.

I AM OFFICIALLY IN HELL!

I live my philosophy, it's personal to me and people who engage where I live establish an unspoken dynamic, a relationship of sorts, with me and my philosophy.

Cutting folks for sport is a reality for the poor in spirit. I myself only cut the poor in spirit on Tues., Thurs., and every other Sat.

surreptitious75 wrote:Trans status should always be disclosed to any potential sexual partner otherwise they are having sex by deceptionConsent given under a false assumption is not actually consent and so could therefore be classed as statutory rape

I do not think this question is easy or cut and dry on any issue

When a man goes to bed with a woman he is not anticipating her telling him the morning after that like him she used to be a man as wellOn this issue there should be no ambiguity whatsoever as she should reveal her status before she has sex every time with a different man

Thanathots wrote:If trannies really identified as X, they wouldn't be asking others to call them that. Others would just automatically recognize them as X.

As Wendy has helpfully pointed out, they frequently do. Do you concede that they should be considered X?

Thanathots wrote:in order to be consistent with his nonsense Carleas would have to give control of the forum over to me.

Surely you accept that there are things that are true by dint of a sincere belief that they are true, e.g. I am a Christian if and only if I sincerely believe that I'm a Christian. I don't think our disagreement is about whether such things exist, just about whether the social dimension of sex identity is one of those things. We also agree, it seems, that property ownership is not one of those things. But I don't see how property ownership connects to sex. Is your sex something you own, like a website? I can sell this site, are you saying that I can be a woman if I buy womanness? I can turn this site off, can I turn off my sex identity?

WendyDarling wrote:[Graecopithecus]

Interesting, I hadn't seen this. Still, I don't think it makes the point you want it to make. For one thing, there is still substantial debate about this among paleontologists. And popular reports are not likely to get the science right, e.g. the authors note that, "The media coverage to which Benoit and Thackeray refer in their comment concerning the hypothesis of a European origin of hominins – when in fact we propose an Eastern Mediterranean (which also includes Africa) origin – is a perfect example" (emphasis added). I'd say your use follows this politicized approach, since wherever the split from chimps occurred, only one line of human ancestors resulted. The fact remains that you and every black person share the same set of ancestors back beyond some finite number of generations.

You, every black person, and Rachel Dolezal.

surreptitious75 wrote:On this issue there should be no ambiguity...

You're just repeating yourself. What makes it different from being raised Catholic, or Democrat, or having been a slut in high school, or majoring in art history, or having eaten pork earlier in the day? There are plenty of things in a person's history that some other person will see as a deal breaker -- and plenty that could drive a person so disposed to violence after the fact. I'm sure the population for whom being trans is that kind of thing is relatively large, but I don't think it's about anything inherent in being trans.

Pedro I Rengel wrote:Biology is not salient in bathrooms?

In almost every physical sport (and certainly in the ones we're talking about where transwomen can actually pose a danger), physical contact between the participants happens in every minute of every match.

In my three decades of using public restrooms, I can't remember experiencing or witnessing any physical contact between the people in the restroom that wasn't a parent or other caregiver helping a young child.

Ok, so take all such traits a biological man can have, and imagine an outlier who has all of them to an extreme degree, such that the only traits that aren't feminine are 1) chromosomes, and 2) genital shape. In a social situation that doesn't involve chromosomes or genitals, why shouldn't that person be treated as a woman? By hypothesis, everything that matters about gender in that context is feminine. Social expectations and intuitions around that interaction will be more accurate if the mental model we use there is "woman" rather than "man".

I'm glad you brought this up.I'm not sure it's possible a person with a woman's body could have a wholly male brain/mind, but let's assume it is for the sake of argument.

Let's say I'm throwing a dinner party.I'm inviting three coworkers, two of them are men, one of them is a 'transman'.She was born Jill, but legally changed her name to 'Jack'.In her adolescence, neurologists examined her brain, and to the best of their ability, determined it to be 98.8% male (now neurologists may never discover most of the ways male brains differ from females, nor an objective way of determining which difference is more significant, but again, let's say they have for the sake of argument).Altho her brain is almost completely male, and she identifies as a man, she chose not to have sex reassignment surgery or take steroids, for health reasons.

Throughout the night, I offer more alcoholic beverages to my two male coworkers than to Jack, not because I'm transphobic, but because physically she's a woman, she's shorter, has a slighter frame and weighs less.I also serve her a smaller portion of food for the same reason.

We sit down at the dinner table, and I notice it's hard to hear Jack's voice over my two male coworkers and me, so we have to deliberately lower our voices so she can get a word in.I also notice while it's short length, she has a full head of hair at 40, and probably will for the rest of her life, whereas my two male coworkers are balding.I too still have my hair, and my two male coworkers are both envious of her and I.

I notice Jack has an interest in many typically male subjects, like politics and computer science, but has little interest in sports.I ask her if she plays or ever played sports in her youth.She tells me she tried to get into sports, but couldn't, because she couldn't keep up with the boys, and she refused to play with girls because she didn't identify as one, so she got more into computers and video games instead.

After dinner, Jack tells me she's spotted a book on my bookshelf she'd like to read, too high for her to reach, so I grab it for her.After I finish taking a piss, I put the seat down, thinking she may have to use the toilet at some point.

It's getting late, and everyone needs to head home, we're all too drunk to drive, my two male coworkers stagger home in one direction, and Jack needs to get home safe in the opposite direction.I offer to call her a cab, she declines, I offer to walk her home, she accepts.

On the way home, I notice she appears a little colder than I, so I offer her my coat, she accepts.I think about her personality, and while she's definitely more masculine than most women, she's still not quite as masculine as most men, and I wonder how much just having a female body has affected her perception of herself.

We arrive at her place, and Jack tells me to come up and stay with her for a bit.She tells me to find something on TV while she gets more comfy.As I'm channel surfing, she exits her bedroom, and I'm surprised to see she's swapped the t-shirt and jeans she was wearing for a sexy dress.I ask her, what're you doing, and she replies, I like to dress up as the opposite sex every once in a while, for the lols.She asks me what I think, and I tell her she looks good, really good.While I thought she was cute, I didn't realize how feminine and sexy she was until she lost the t-shirt and jeans.She sits on the couch beside me to watch TV, and I can't stop thinking about how good she looks in that dress.It takes every fiber of my being not to make a move on her.You see Jack told me she identifies as heterosexual, which for her means she's only attracted to women.But before I know it, she's all over me, and I end up spending the night.

In the morning I wake up hungover, a little baffled by the sudden turn of events.I ask her, I thought you were only attracted to women, and she tells me she is, but occasionally likes to sleep with men when she's hammered, because it beats a strap on.Plus she said I was really kind to her, and she finds kindness sexy irrespective of sex/gender.I remembered we didn't use protection, and she told me not to worry, she's going to buy emergency contraception.She apologized, and said she had no idea we were going to sleep together before coming over to my place.I left her apartment and spent the next few days worrying about whether she took emergency contraception or not.

A few days later I saw Jack at work, talked to her about things, and was delighted to learn she's started her period.She was moody that day, and I tried not to step on her toes.

So why do I tell you this story?The point is, social situations aren't just mental and emotional, they're physical too.A persons body isn't just relevant at the doctors office, it's more or less always relevant.And a persons body is in large part determined by their chromosomes (XX or XY) and genitals.Whether they like or not, realize it or not, a persons physical sex is part of their social identity.even if she has a wholly male brain/mind, my relationship with 'Jack' is never going to be the same as it is with a real man.

Last edited by Gloominary on Mon Aug 27, 2018 7:54 am, edited 2 times in total.

So this hypothetical transman would have the body of a woman and the brain/mind of a man, both of them with roughly equal social significance.So does that make her 50/50, half male, half female?

The thing about the brain is it's less massive than the body, so in an objective sense, we're more our bodies than our brains.The brain is just one organ in the body, one of many.And so sex is mostly physical, not neurological/psychological.

And the thing about the body in general and organs in particular is males have, nearly everything females do, for example both males and females have hips and shoulders, but males have proportionally broader shoulders, and females wider hips.Males have brains, hearts and lungs, and so do females, they're just sized and structured a little differently, but males don't have XX chromosomes and female sex organs, which's why chromosomes and sex organs are referred to as primary sex characteristics, as opposed to secondary.So they're more significant in determining sex than the brain/mind, just as the body as a whole is more significant in determining sex than the brain/mind.

And these primary sex characteristics aren't trivial.Without chromosomes, not a single cell in our body could exist, and chromosomes largely determine the sex of every cell in your body, as well as explaining many-most differences between individuals.As we've seen, genitals are not trivial, or asocial, they're highly relevant and social.

This means a hypothetical transman like 'Jack' with a fully male brain is still fundamentally or mostly female, and real transwomen, with androgynous brains, are definitely fundamentally or mostly female, so it makes more sense to call, think of and treat them as predominantly female.

This story...reads like one-handed typing. I don't see the relevance of explicitly assuming that the "trans" person in the story isn't actually trans, but play acting. As I am using the word trans, the woman in this story would not qualify; "liking to dress up as the opposite sex every once in a while, for the lols" is not the same as a sincere belief that one was born in a body that doesn't reflect their subjective sex.

As for the other non-conforming physical examples (low appetite and tolerance for alcohol, small stature, soft-spokenness), there are a ton of cis men who meet all those criteria.

Gloominary wrote:The thing about the brain is it's less massive than the body, so in an objective sense, we're more our bodies than our brains.

Yes, but again, most of our body things just aren't relevant. You don't suspect the short men you know of actually being women, so even those ludicrous indicia of body misalignment are not really gendered in the way you assume them to be in your story.

Pedro I Rengel wrote:In what sense IS its salient?

Pooping is biological. But it's not relevant in this discussion, because pooping in a modern unisex bathroom is not a social activity.

Thanathots wrote:If trannies really identified as X, they wouldn't be asking others to call them that. Others would just automatically recognize them as X.

As Wendy has helpfully pointed out, they frequently do. Do you concede that they should be considered X?

You don't suspect the short men you know of actually being women, so even those ludicrous indicia of body misalignment are not really gendered in the way you assume them to be in your story.

In 2014, Jennifer Laude, a 26-year-old Filipina woman, was brutally murdered after having sex with a U.S. marine.

Height does play an important role in how we perceive individuals. Women standing at 5'8" or taller would have an easier time having their height align with the average males height (5'10") therefore allowing them to pretend to be male with greater ease than say if they were was 5'2". If a short man (5'4" as in the story I mentioned above) decked himself out as a woman, it would be more likely that he would be perceived as a woman due to his short stature than a 6'0 man who decked himself out in the same manner to imitate a woman. Petite men just have an easier time lying to the masses about the nature of their gender if they so choose.http://www.wecare4eyes.com/averageemployeeheights.htmIn the chart, Philippine males are on average the height (5'4") of many woman (world wide average 5'6") which can lend itself to a male physique being mistaken for a female physique due to similar statures in regards to the worldwide average of a female's height. Fausexuals without their costuming and hormones are very rarely mistaken for their coveted gender. Typical fauxwomen and fauxmen are never mistaken for their coveted gender no matter what they do to conceal their true nature, people in general feel that there is things are amiss about them, off, not right. Their voice is wrong, height is wrong, musculature is wrong, facial attributes are wrong, etc.

I AM OFFICIALLY IN HELL!

I live my philosophy, it's personal to me and people who engage where I live establish an unspoken dynamic, a relationship of sorts, with me and my philosophy.

Cutting folks for sport is a reality for the poor in spirit. I myself only cut the poor in spirit on Tues., Thurs., and every other Sat.

This story...reads like one-handed typing. I don't see the relevance of explicitly assuming that the "trans" person in the story isn't actually trans, but play acting. As I am using the word trans, the woman in this story would not qualify; "liking to dress up as the opposite sex every once in a while, for the lols" is not the same as a sincere belief that one was born in a body that doesn't reflect their subjective sex.

You just don't get it...moving on.

As for the other non-conforming physical examples (low appetite and tolerance for alcohol, small stature, soft-spokenness), there are a ton of cis men who meet all those criteria.

Periods, menopause, real vaginas and wombs can't be found in men, and they have social consequences.

It's not just smaller stature, women's bodies make them different and generally more vulnerable in all sorts of ways, that have social implications, and they also make them more or less attractive to people with different sexual orientations.

And the same thing could be said of psychosexual traits, that even tho they're more prevalent in one sex than another, they can be found in both sexes, so why do trans feel the need to sexualize them?And if their perception of their psychosexuality is not based on what psychosexual traits they believe they possess, than it's not actually based on anything, and so referring to themselves as psychosexually male or female makes about as much sense as referring to myself as psychologically pineapple or octagon.

If I'm Jack the fauxman's boss, and I tell her to go meet some people at x, and I tell these people who've never met Jack to meet Jack at x, on the basis of her masculine name they'll be looking for a male, and there'll be more confusion than there'd be if Jack had a feminine name, like Jill.

In sexual situations or sports like MMA, a persons personality is less and their physique more relevant, so why do faxumen and fauxwomen still insist on being referred to as their coveted sex in these situations?

Pedro I Rengel wrote:So is ok if I walk into a ladie's bathroom? What would be the problem?

I'm not defending the idea of gendered bathrooms, so I want to plant a flag there.

But where bathrooms are gendered, the difference between a man who presents as a man and identifies as a man going into a women's room, and a biological man who presents as a woman and identifies as a woman going into a women's room, is that in the former case, the person is openly transgressing the social norm and it's reasonable to worry that they will transgress other norms of bathroom etiquette. It's the difference between someone going into the bathroom thinking "this bathroom is for me and people like me", and someone going into the bathroom thinking, "this bathroom explicitly excludes me and I'm going in anyway."

Gloominary wrote:You just don't get it.

Communication is a two way street. Help me understand. Your story does not contain a trans character. What am I missing.

Gloominary wrote:Periods, menopause, real vaginas and wombs...

I don't know the period, menopause, vagina, or womb situation of almost any woman I interact with. In almost all social situations, none of that matters.

Gloominary wrote: they can be found in both sexes, so why do trans feel the need to sexualize them?

Aren't you sexualizing them?

I agree that transsexuality raises interesting questions about gender more broadly. Recognizing transsexuals seems to undermine blank-slate philosophies of the social equality of the sexes. A transwoman asking to be treated as a woman implicitly demands that women be treated differently.

Gloominary wrote:If I'm Jack the fauxman's boss, and I tell her to go meet some people at x, and I tell these people who've never met Jack to meet Jack at x, on the basis of her masculine name they'll be looking for a male, and there'll be more confusion than there'd be if Jack had a feminine name, like Jill.

If anything, the difference in confusion will be marginal. A transman who presents as male is generally well within the distribution of male traits.

Gloominary wrote:In sexual situations or sports like MMA, a persons personality is less relevant, so why do faxumen and fauxwomen insist on being referred to as their coveted sex in these situations?

As I've acknowledged, this is a real but distinct problem. I expect that transsexuals don't think of themselves as having one sex in social contexts and a different sex in others, but as having one coherent sexual identity that they expect to carry with them into any context they enter. I think that's something of a conceptual failure, but an understanding given the way our culture conceptualizes sex and gender, and the limits of how our language constrains expression of those concepts.

For the purpose of this discussion, let's stipulate that s-sex means social sex, and b-sex means biological sex. With that distinction, it's seems trivially easy to understand how someone could be s-female and b-male, and that there would be no tension in doing so. Then we could discuss whether s-sex or b-sex is more important in a given context. In a doctor's office, b-sex is likely to dominate. In a business setting, s-sex would dominate (to the extent even that is relevant). For gift-giving, s-sex. For MMA? B-sex seems more important. For mental competitions, like chess or math olympics, maybe s-sex is dominant.

The point being, there are multiple distinct and distinguishable concepts tied up in sex that don't have a necessary relationship with one another, and one or the other may be more salient in a given situation. There's no tension or deception in understanding the world that way, and in many contexts our predictions about behavior, i.e. the "effectiveness" of our beliefs, will be better when we treat them separately.